On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have urged that once the entire evidence has been discussed and it has been duly held that the respondents had purchased not only the land under the ownership of their vendors but also their due share in the shamilat and since the matter relates to sales having been effected from 1910 to 1941 it would not be just and fair in writ jurisdiction to give a fresh lease of life to this litigation. Learned counsel also pointed out that even while holding that Mukand Singh has no locus standi, the Collector nevertheless, on merits, did allow the application in respect of the excess land held by respondents No.6 to 8. Apart from the fact that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the paramount consideration is that of sub-serving cause of justice, it can also not be lost sight of that under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, it is mandated that notwithstanding the fact that a case may be disposed of on any preliminary issue, the Court shall pronounce judgments on all issues. As far as the merit of the controversy is concerned, it is not disputed that under Section 2(g)(5)(iv) of the Act, land which has been acquired before 26.1.1950 and is not in excess of the share of the vendor in the shamilat deh cannot be included in the definition of shamilat deh.
